8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 62 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ex Parte Siebert.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ex Parte Siebert Anchor | green | “photographic evidence, if relevant, is admissible even if it has a tendency to inflame the minds of the jurors.” | 19 |
| 2 | Haney v. State | green | “provided reasonable assurance that prejudice would have been discovered if present.” | 9 |
| 3 | Dubose v. State | green | “rather, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that an expert would aid in his defense and must show that a denial of an expert to assist at trial would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.” | 7 |
| 4 | Williams v. State | green | “photographic exhibits are admissible even though they may be cumulative, demonstrative of undisputed facts, or gruesome.” | 7 |
| 5 | Williams v. State | green | “williams v. state, 506 so.2d 368, 371 (ala.cr.app.1986), cert. denied, 506 so.2d 372 (ala.1987).” | 7 |
| 6 | Hallford v. State | green | “even in capital cases, there is no requirement that a defendant be allowed to question each prospective juror individually during voir dire examination.” | 6 |
| 7 | Haney v. State | green | “the fact that a particular capital offense as defined in section 13a-5-40(a) necessarily includes one or more aggravating circumstances as specified in section 13a-5-49 shall not be construed to preclude the finding and consideration of that relevant circumstance or circumstance…” | 4 |
| 8 | Ex Parte Moody | green | “in ex parte moody, 684 so.2d 114 (ala.1996), the alabama supreme court defined the standard by which a trial court must assess an indigent defendant's request for expert assistance.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.